2012-02-09 11:12:48Okay, don't hate me, I reinstated Camburn
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Gave into the emailed requests, I'm a big softie, I know. Keep a close eye on him, though, no second chances, any violation and you can ban him again.

2012-02-09 13:02:09...
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

 

 

 

.

2012-02-10 02:54:00
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Bad decision!

2012-02-10 05:39:41
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
68.34.93.62

Elapsed time to Camburn being obnoxious or off topic - roughly 30 hours.

Sigh.

2012-02-10 06:21:38
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Less than that.

2012-02-10 07:22:52
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161
2012-02-12 13:34:04
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
70.165.79.231

The farce is strong with this one.

The S/N ratio, not so much...

2012-02-12 13:39:58
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.13.228

Yes, hasn't taken much time to clog up the threads with rubbish again. 

2012-02-12 15:00:17
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.149.122

KR at 5:39 AM, 10th Feb, with hindsight, good call.

2012-02-12 15:12:51
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
70.165.79.231

Tom Curtis - I see Camburn regularly posting on WUWT, and have seen no changes in his behavior since his initial posting record at SkS.

I am rather unsurprised at the level of nonsense put forth now.

 

John Cook: It's your website, and I am hesitant to tell you what to do with it. I'm simply happy to be able to (on occasion, when I am being reasonable) to contribute to the discussion insofar as I am able. But I cannot consider the reinstatement of Camburn to be a postive move, no matter how he whined.

Perhaps a note to Camburn regarding his recent posting behavior??? Followed by a warning, followed by a clue-brick (Stanley the Cluebrick, to quote a friend), followed by a cricket bat upside the head and a second banishement? Because I cannot see Camburn following another path...

2012-02-12 15:33:01
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Since JC has reinstated Camburn, he should be personally responsible for moderating him.

2012-02-13 02:08:10,,,,
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

 

 

 

...

2012-02-13 02:30:28
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.149.122

Daniel's one fullstop has expanded to three.  He must be getting madder by the minute.  Or more diplomatic.

2012-02-13 03:09:43
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

The latter, Tom.  :)

Letting fake-skeptics like Norman or Camburn make you mad or letting them drive threads off-topic merely plays into their hand.

Their goal is obfuscation and delay.  And denial, when they can sneak it in.

2012-02-13 03:13:44
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

I think the refutations to both Camburn and Norman have to be structured as an intellectual exercise geared towards the neutral reader, not to them specifically.  A surgical, point-by-point rebuttal is indeed time-consuming, but it leaves no doubt in the mind of the lay reader as to the intellectual paucity of the fake-skeptic position.

Like a game of chess:  one methodically and surgically removes dismantles the opponents defenses resulting in a checkmate.  Anything after that is meaningless, as the fake-skeptic is exposed for what they are and thus has no remaining credibility.

2012-02-14 15:21:18Back to his usual making sh*t up
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

His most recent prevarication is here.

2012-02-14 15:46:54Just one thing though
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

All these things:

cherry-picking, taking quotes out of context to support a predetermined conclusion and has also resorted to simply making things up to bolster his case

are not in our comments policy. Moderators shouldn't prosecute comments based on the quality of their arguments but based on their behaviour as defined by the comments policy.

There is a strong desire to not let trolls misinform. But we also have to be careful about our zeal in moderation - when you use the moderator status as an arbiter of truth, it's a slippery slope. Just as important as the accuracy of the science is the perception of how SkS conducts itself. I think we need to be careful to restrict moderation and use of the moderation response box to issues of comments policy.

2012-02-14 15:56:58
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

"All these things...are not in our comments policy"

Point noted and taken.  However, if people are allowed to simply make things up as they choose, then why have a Comments Policy

Camburn is certainly entitled to his own opinion.  But making up his own facts to support them is not an entitlement.

 

 

I will amend my tone in the response.

2012-02-15 05:38:36
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I have a viscarel hatred of people like Camburn who purposely hi-jack comment threads by spreading loads of poppycock on them.  

If the Comments Policy does not permit Moderators to ban commentors for hi-jacking, then the Comments Policy has a gapping hole in it.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" ought to be our watchword.

2012-02-15 06:42:28
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.243.213

John H, include thread hijacking in the comments policy then. I agree with you, people like Camburn are here specifically for that purpose. It should not be tolerated - it gives the false impression of earnest debate to unwary bystanders. 

2012-02-15 07:30:20
scaddenp

p.scadden@gns.cri...
161.65.53.59

Well I would have thought that Sks was there to debunk poppycock. I value the comments policy for how it improves debate but it shouldnt preclude participation by denialists.

2012-02-15 07:48:55
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.243.213

Phil, I believe it has to move beyond that. It must, otherwise we'll keep going around in circles. That's not to say we don't debunk rubbish, that is our primary objective. But why give a podium to people like Camburn to trot out their disingenuous schtick? He does it over and over again. What does that accomplish, other than waste the moderator's and other contributor's time?

It would be more useful to have a moderation policy that weeds out these people over time. The internet is a ginormous place, they can peddle their wares elsewhere. No one here, AFAIK, is averse to genuine debate or skepticism - it's a continuous learning experience. But trolling, in whatever guise, is not either of those.  

2012-02-17 04:20:53
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Phil:

The other primary purpose of SkS is to educate readers about climate science. As a teacher does in a classroom, we want to encourage our readers to ask questions in order to learn.

Enabling commentors like Camburn to repeatedly hi-jack comment threads is akin to letting a bully disrupt an entire classroom day after day after day. We should be using the comment thread as an educational tool, not a faux debating platform.

 

2012-02-17 10:42:40
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.175.176

If hijacking means posting off-topic comments, then yes, delete the off-topic comment and label it as off-topic.

But we cannot moderate comments based on whether we agree with the arguments - we only moderate based on behaviour and adherence to the comments policy. We have to be careful that our 'visceral hatred' doesn't manifest itself in our moderation or that will damage SkS and make our outreach less effective. It's imperative that we are disciplined and in control of our emotions at all times when engaging with deniers but especially so when moderating as a representative of SkS.

"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few" is exactly the point here. How we moderate and conduct ourselves affects how we are perceived by the large majority of undecideds. How we behave is just as important as the content we say. So view trolls like Camburn with a dispassionate eye, distinguish between misleading comments vs policy violations and if it falls into the former, dispassionately use his misinformation as an opportunity to turn his myths into a teachable moment for the undecided onlookers, keeping in mind that they are our target audience, not the trolls.

2012-02-18 08:36:21
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

JC:

The large majority of the undecided are completely turned-off by comment threads dominated by one or two individuals - assuming that they even bother to read the comment threads.